so according to that chart, that means nak had a chance to walk away when he was ahead... because he obviously lost and then won his coins back plus some... so how is that dirty? There was obviously a span of time when the change was put into place so it didnt happen in the middle of his betting like he accused. looks to be about 15-20 minutes without nak betting when the change was made.

I was beaten hard today (as "percent" on JD). During the course of my play, just-dice.com's rule changed.

1. Max profit went down to 0.25%; (CHANGED WHEN I WAS PLAYING, WHICH IS UNFAIR.) 2. (not confirmed) the house edge raised when profit is larger than 50.

(I feel) The game is completely different. I wasn't able to drag the site's profit to down -6K. I don't remember, I once did(?), but seconds later I was down dramatically. And in the end, I lost 3K, which means, with a max profit of 70, I am incapable of winning back, crystally clear.Therefore, I'm leaving JD for good, since 1) I cannot win further; 2) I've proved my points.

Allow me restate: I respect doog and his work. Doog is an upstanding guy, and his work is wonderful. What happened during last three months, is nothing personal. Once doog asked me, "You always say you respect my work, why are you trying to kill the profit of JD?" I didn't and never meant to.

IMO, a winning whale is the most effective advertisement of a casino. However, most people here would disagree. They're more happy to see a whale is hunted down, beaten hard. I played by rules, and won. (I'm still up a lot.)

From now on, I'll only talk about projects I'm involving, https://letsdice.com, for example. Hope most of you be nice to me. Thank you.

PS: About the bankroll I have, I started "gambling" on JD with 3000BTC (apart from another 4000 for investment), and never down more than 700.

UPDATED:

Quote

02:14:27 (1) <dooglus> so the change isn't permanent.

So, can I interpret this as: the change was made specifically for me? only because I always win (bit, and legit). I'm somehow disappointed.

It's silly to lower the max wager because someone gets lucky. The math doesn't change. The max wager should be 0.5% of bankroll for the even money bet. Otherwise you're not maximizing your investors' profits.

Nakowa can never win it back. This proves he has no 'method' or 'strategy' and only got lucky at the higher limits.

He is a fraud. He tried to sell his 'strategy' for 111BTC. Trying to rip-off unsuspecting superstitious people. If he really has a strategy he should still be able to win even 1000BTC at the lower limits.

While allover's losing streak tonight was rather frightening to watch (from someone who likes a bit of a gamble), I have to say it's not extraordinary. I have stood at a French roulette wheel betting on black and lost ten times in a row. If it was online at an unregulated gambling site I would probably be tempted to say I was cheated, but this happened at a real bricks and mortar casino.

Allover, you are ahead on your gambling and have done well. The best thing to do is to consider your options and strongly consider walking away a handsome winner. Many, many gamblers have begun a losing streak and think 'I can't be this unlucky' and 'surely things can only improve from here' then gamble away all their assets and more.

If you can find some evidence that you were cheated then please present it. 'I can't possibly be this unlucky' doesn't really count as anything but highly circumstantial evidence.

Nakowa can never win it back. This proves he has no 'method' or 'strategy' and only got lucky at the higher limits.

He is a fraud. He tried to sell his 'strategy' for 111BTC. Trying to rip-off unsuspecting superstitious people. If he really has a strategy he should still be able to win even 1000BTC at the lower limits.

But he won't. He can't win anymore.

Yes a fraud, however don't be too sure about "can't win anymore". House edge is the same, only the variance is tighter.

If you can find some evidence that you were cheated then please present it. 'I can't possibly be this unlucky' doesn't really count as anything but highly circumstantial evidence.

This is exactly why I advise Dooglus to publish his algorithm, since it's truly "provably fair". If doog didn't cheat at all, what's the loss for him? I think it's the easiest way for Dooglus to prove himself clear. And, I said I wouldn't call anyone a cheater without proof.